JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The respondents have been convicted for on offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act 1948 for breach of the provisions of Section 12 of the said Act read with Rule 18 of the U. P. Factories Rules 1950. They have been awarded a sentence of fine of Rs. 250/- each and in default to undergo one months' S. I. 2. The respondents are occupier and Manager of Diamond Sugar Factory, Pipraich, district Gorakhpur. The factory was in existence on the date of the enforcement of the rules framed under the Act. Under clause 7 of Rule 18 of the U. P. Factory Rules, the Factory was required to submit to the Effluent Board which was constituted by the State Government, an application detailing the arrangements which were in existence for the disposal of the wastes emanating due to the manufacturing process carried on by the factory, for its approval. It appears that the Effluent Board did not approve this arrangement and made suggestions to the factory from time to time as to the manner it should dispose of its effluents but the management of the factory did not comply with these suggestions. The Inspector of Factories inspected the premises of the factory on 5-12-1967. He found that proper arrangement had not been made for the disposal of the effluents from the factory as directed by the Effluent Board. Ile, therefore, filed a complaint on 1-3-1968 in the court of the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur for taking cognizance of the offence against the accused under Section 92 of the Factories Act as aforesaid. 3. The respondents asserted in their statements that effective arrangements had been made for disposal of the effluents and the Effluent Board had not prescribed any definite plan. It is further asserted that the complaint had been filed under some illusion. The respondents produced Ram Dularey Singh (D. W. 1), Deputy Chief Engineer of the Factory and Chandrika Tewari (D. W. 2) to prove their case. These witnesses deposed that the wastes emanating from the factory was disposed of into a pond, and that the same was being used for irrigating the fields without causing any harm to any one. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined Sri Banwari Lal Shukla (P. W. 1). These witnesses deposed that the wastes emanating from the factory was disposed of into a pond, and that the same was being used for irrigating the fields without causing any harm to any one. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined Sri Banwari Lal Shukla (P. W. 1). Inspector of Factories and also filed a series of correspondence between the Inspector of Factories, and the Diamond Sugar Factory vide Ex. Ka 1 to Ka 12. Sri Banwari Lal Shukla in his deposition repeated the allegations made in the complaint. From a perusal of the statement and the correspondence referred to above, it is clear that by order of the Effluent Board, the factory was directed to install a plant for treating the effluents flowing out of the factory premises. This order has not been complied with by the said factory upto this day. There is no dispute on this point between the parties. 5. The first class Magistrate, Gorakhpur by his order dated 17-9-1968 held the respondents guilty of an offence for the breach of Section 12 of the Factory Act read with Rule 18 of the Rules framed thereunder, and convicted the respondents under Section 92 of the said Act, and imposed a fine of Rs. 250/- each. 6. An appeal filed therefrom was allowed by the Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur on 15-9-1969 on the finding that the arrangements made by the factory for disposal of its wastes and effluents through a Noli did not appear to be ineffective. Aggrieved thereby, the State of U. P. has filed an appeal in this court under Section 417, Cr. P. C. 7. Learned counsel for the State has argued that the acquittal of the accused is not warranted in law. He has pointed out to us certain sections of the Factories Act and the Rules made thereunder in support of his submission which we shall presently examine. Section 12 of the Factories Act runs thus :- Disposal of wastes and effluents :- (1) Effective arrangements shall be made in every factory for the disposal of wastes and effluents due to the manufacturing process carried on therein. (2) The State Government may make rules prescribing the arrangements to be made under Sub-Section (1) or requiring that the arrangement made in accordance with Sub-Section (1) shall be approved by such authority as may be prescribed. (2) The State Government may make rules prescribing the arrangements to be made under Sub-Section (1) or requiring that the arrangement made in accordance with Sub-Section (1) shall be approved by such authority as may be prescribed. Under this section a duty is cast upon every factory to make effective arrangements for disposal of its wastes and effluents. The aforesaid section envisages two procedures for scrutinising whether the arrangements made by factory are effective or not. In the first place, the State Government is authorised to prescribe rules with regard to the arrangements that ought to be made. In the second place, the State Government is authorised to appoint an authority which is empowered to approve of the arrangements made by the factory. It is not disputed that the State Government has not prescribed any rules as required under Sub-Section 2 of Section 12. It is further not disputed that the State Government has appointed the Effluent Board which is the authority to approve of the arrangements made by the factory. Thus in the present case we are not concerned with the powers and jurisdiction of the Effluent Board with regard to the approval or otherwise of the arrangements which a factory makes for disposal of its wastes and effluents. It has to be considered whether these arrangements are effective or not. 8. Coming now to the rules which have been framed under Section 12(2) of the U. P. Factory Act 1948 it would be pertinent to refer to Rule 18 Sub-rule (1). The Effluent Board is to consist of the following members. (a) Chairman, who shall be the Director of Medical and Health services, U. P., Lucknow. (b) Members, (Secretary) who shall be the Chief Inspector of Factories, U. P., Lucknow. (c) Eight other members belonging to the Health Department, Engineering Department, Irrigation Department, Agricultural Department, Health Organization Department, Head of General Research Section of the Technological Institute, Kanpur and lastly the Chairman of the Indian Sugar Mills Association, U. P. Branch. 9. It is also provided in sub-rule (k) of rule 18 that five other members may also be appointed by the State Government. 10. The constitution of the Effluent Board clearly indicates that it compromises of technical hands who are experts not only in the field of public health but the interest of the management is also represented therein. 9. It is also provided in sub-rule (k) of rule 18 that five other members may also be appointed by the State Government. 10. The constitution of the Effluent Board clearly indicates that it compromises of technical hands who are experts not only in the field of public health but the interest of the management is also represented therein. This Effluent Board is to function for a period of two years under sub-rule 3 of rule 18. Travelling Allowance has been permitted under sub-rule 4 of rule 18. The procedure for meetings is prescribed in sub-rules 5 and 6 of Rule 18. Under sub-rule 7 of Rule 18, it is laid down that :- "Every factory in existence on the date of the enforcement of this rule shall submit to the Board an application along with detailed plans of arrangements proposed to be made, or in existence, in accordance with Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 within 3 months from the date of enforcement of this rule 1". 11. It is not disputed that in pursuance of the requirements of sub-rule 7 of Rule 18, the Diamond Sugar Mills applied to the Effluent Board within the time prescribed therein. It appears from the perusal of the record that the arrangements made by the Diamond Sugar Factory were provisionally accepted by the Effluent Board, but by an order dated 31-1-1966 from the Chief Inspector of Factories, U. P. this interim arrangement was cancelled. The Diamond Sugar Factory was directed to install a treatment plant for the disposal of its wastes and effluents. The factory was given a number of opportunities to comply with the directions of the Effluent Board with the result that it was decided to prosecute the respondents for non-compliance. 12. One of the points raised in this appeal is whether the Effluent Board had the power to give directions to the factory to install a treatment plant while disapproving of the arrangements which had been made by the factory as detailed in his application under sub-rule 7 of Rule 18. For deciding this question is necessary to refer to sub-rule 11 of Rule 18 which runs thus : "If the Board approves of the arrangements the plans in duplicate shall be returned to the factory duly signed by the Secretary on behalf of the Board." 13. For deciding this question is necessary to refer to sub-rule 11 of Rule 18 which runs thus : "If the Board approves of the arrangements the plans in duplicate shall be returned to the factory duly signed by the Secretary on behalf of the Board." 13. It is argued that sub-rule 11 of Rule 18 only authorises the Effluent Board to approve the arrangement but is silent on the question whether it has the power to disapprove the arrangements and issue further instructions. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon an unreported decision of Hon'ble B. D. Gupta, J. in Jagannath Sharma v. State, Cr. Rev. No. 133 of 1970 Dated 30-4-1971. The following observations of the learned Single Judge may be quoted here :- The language in which clause (1) of rule 18 is couched is somewhat unfortunate in as much as it appears to law down that if the arrangement made is in accordance with Sub-Section (1) of Section 12, it shall be approved by the Effluent Board. However, construing the provisions in clause (1) as laying down that such arrangements as existed or are proposed, shall be laid before the Effluent Board for its approval and that in case the Board approves the arrangement, the plans shall be returned as contemplated by clause (ii). There is no provision in rule 18 as to what would be the position in case the Effluent Board disapproved the existing or proposed arrangements, and I fail to see how any breach of any provision in rule 18 is made out by reason of the circumstance merely that the Effluent Board disapproved the arrangements set forward on behalf of the factory in the application made by the factory to the Board under clause (7) of the rule." 14. The above passage has been quoted with approval by a Single Judge Hon'ble Jagmohan Lal, J. in State v. Hari Ram Kamani, G.A. No. 41 of 1969 connected with Criminal appeals Nos. 201 and 202 of 1969 decided on 18-7-1972. 15. We have carefully considered these single Judges decisions but in our opinion they do not lay down the correct law. It is an established principle of law that when the legislature enables something to be done, it gives power at the same time by necessary implication to do everything which is indispensable for the purpose of carrying out the purposes in view. It is an established principle of law that when the legislature enables something to be done, it gives power at the same time by necessary implication to do everything which is indispensable for the purpose of carrying out the purposes in view. Dealing with this doctrine Pollock, C. B. observed in Fenton v. Hampton, (1858) 117 R. R. 32 at p. 41 = 11 Moo. P. C. 347 :- "It becomes therefore all important to consider the true import of this maxim, and the extent to which it has been applied. After the fullest research which I have been able to bestow, I take the matter to stand thus; whenever anything is authorised and especially if, as matter of duty required to be done by law, and it is found impossible to do that thing unless something else not authorised in express terms be also done, then that something will be supplied by necessary intendment" 16. In Bidi, Bidi Leaves and Tobacco Merchants Association, Gondia v. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1962 S. C. 486 : their Lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with the aforesaid principle of law have observed thus : "In other words, the doctrine of implied powers can be legitimately invoked when it is found that a duty has been imposed or a power conferred on an authority by a statute and it is further found that the duty cannot be discharged or the power cannot be exercised at all unless some auxiliary or incidental power is assumed to exist. In such a case, in the absence of an implied power the statute itself would become impossible of compliance. The impossibility in question must be of a general nature so that the performance of duty or the exercise of power is rendered impossible in all cases. It really means that the statutory provision would become a dead letter and cannot be enforced unless a subsidiary power is implied." 17. In our opinion, the power granted to the Effluent Board under sub-rule 11 of Rule, 18 authorising it to approve the arrangements which the existing factory has made with regard to its wastes and effluents also carries with it an implied power to reject the arrangement and to issue directions for the making of other specific arrangement which in the opinion of the Effluent Board would be effective in the circumstances of each case. If this power is not implied, sub-rule 11 of Rule 18 would become a dead letter in-capable of providing any relief for the making of an effective arrangement to safeguard the health and welfare of the workers of the factory. We are, therefore, of opinion that the single Judge decisions referred to above has been wrongly decided and must be overruled. 18. The next question which has been raised in this case depends upon the interpretation of sub-rule 14 of Rule 18 framed under the Factories Act which runs thus : "The Manager, or the occupier of the factory may, within thirty days of the date of the decision of the Board. appeal against it to the State Government whose order shall be final." 19. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that use of the words "shall be final" cannot oust the jurisdiction of this court to consider whether the arrangements provided by the factory are effective or not. For this purpose also, reliance has been placed upon the above mentioned single Judge decision; in which the following observations have been made:- "It is true that the necessary inference flowing from the disapproval by the Effluent Board was that in the opinion of the Board the arrangements, which the factory had been resorting to for disposal of its wastes and effluents, was not effective. That however, by itself, appears wholly insufficient to make the Court held that the applicants had not made effective arrangements for the disposal of the wastes and effluents. If the State Government rules prescribing the arrangement to be made, and that arrangement had not been resorted to, a breach of clause (i) of Section 12 of the Act may have been involved. In the absence of any such rule by the State Government, the Court has to record its own satisfaction in regard to each case brought be fore it that the factory concerned had not made effective arrangements for the disposal of wastes and effluents." 20. We have held above that the Effluent Board is empowered to disapprove of the arrangement made by the factory and also to give further directions as to the manner in which the wastes and effluents of the factory are to be discharged. We have held above that the Effluent Board is empowered to disapprove of the arrangement made by the factory and also to give further directions as to the manner in which the wastes and effluents of the factory are to be discharged. Under sub-rule 148 of Rule 18 the Manager or the occupier of the factory had been given a right to file an appeal to the State Government within thirty days and that the order of the State Government shall be final as laid down thereunder. The point for consideration is as to what is the scope of the finality which is mentioned in that sub-section. Finality of orders may be of two types. In one case, it may refer to finality within the provisions of that Act. That is to say once the order has become final because the State Government has decided it under sub-rule 14 of Rule 18 or because no appeal has been preferred by the party, in either case the authorities provided under the Factories Act or the rules framed thereunder have got no power to revise or review the final order passed in accordance with the provisions of these rules. The other type of finality refer to the jurisdiction of the courts to consider the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed under sub-rule 14 of Rule 18. It cannot be disputed that such orders as are passed by the Effluent Board can be challenged by Civil Courts. It is not the intention of the framers of the Factories Act and the rules framed thereunder to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts, in considering the question whether the arrangements made by factory are effective or not. But for that purpose, it is necessary that an action should be launched in the proper forum that is the Civil Court for challenging those orders. In several enactments we find that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to take cognizance of proceedings arising under that Act are barred; for instance under Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, no civil suit or proceedings shall lie for challenging the orders passed under that Act. There is no such corresponding provision in the Factories Act. In several enactments we find that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to take cognizance of proceedings arising under that Act are barred; for instance under Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, no civil suit or proceedings shall lie for challenging the orders passed under that Act. There is no such corresponding provision in the Factories Act. As such, it is evident that this Act does not bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to consider whether the requirements of Section 12 of the Factories Act have been complied with or not. In the present case, however, no civil suit has been filed for the purpose of challenging the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the Effluent Board. As such to our minds, that matter cannot be gone into in a prosecution under Section 92 of the Factories Act. Section 92 of the Factories Act runs as follows :- "92 General penalty for offences. Save as is otherwise expressly provided in this Act and subject to the provisions of Section 93 if in or in respect of any factory there is any contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule made thereunder or of any order in writing given thereunder, the occupier and manager of the factory shall each be guilty of an offence and punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to three months or with fine, which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both and if the contravention is continued after conviction, with a further fine which may extend to seventy five rupees for each day on which the contravention is so continued." 21. From a perusal of this section it is clear that the occupier or manager of the factory are liable to commit an offence under the aforesaid section of the Act if they have contravened any rules made thereunder or any order given in writing thereunder. 22. In the present case, as we have mentioned above, the Effluent Board had passed an order directing the Diamond Sugar Factory to install a treatment plant in the premises for the disposal of its wastes and effluents. This order had become final under the Act as no appeal had been preferred therefrom by the respondents. A disobedience of this order, therefore, is clearly covered by the provisions of Section 92 of the Factories Act. 23. This order had become final under the Act as no appeal had been preferred therefrom by the respondents. A disobedience of this order, therefore, is clearly covered by the provisions of Section 92 of the Factories Act. 23. In our opinion, therefore, all that this court is required to consider in this appeal is whether there is in existence a final order of the Effluent Board which has been contravened by the respondents. There is no dispute that there is such an order which has not been complied with by the respondents. As such, in our opinion the respondents are clearly guilty of an offence punishable under Section 92 of the said Act. The observations made in this connection in the unreported decisions referred to above, therefore, cannot be upheld for the simple reason that they have failed to consider the import of the words "shall be final" as laid down in Rule 18 sub-rule 12 of the U. P. Factories Rules 1950. We are, therefore, of opinion that by contravention of the order of the Effluent Board directing the respondents to set up treatment plant they have committed the breach of Section 12 of the Factories Act read with rule 18 of the aforesaid Rules punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act. 24. In the result, therefore, this appeal is allowed. The order of the Sessions Judge dated 15-9-1969 is set aside and that of the Magistrate dated 17-9-1968 is restored. The respondents are convicted under Section 92 of the Factories Act and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 250/- each. In default of payment of fine, they shall each undergo simple imprisonment for one month.